ML20040E084
| ML20040E084 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/04/1981 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-1891, NUDOCS 8202030088 | |
| Download: ML20040E084 (21) | |
Text
R AMRs.- /g7/
\\
s l
fpf /- / j- && )
f
---r--~
sfru! -
- s l
CERTIFIED COPY
- 1
- h. p &
6 LU UUd Issue Date: 12-4-81
{
12-4-81 l
MINUTES OF THE ACRS SUBC0ti'ilTTEE MEETING ON WASTE MANAGEMENT -
WASHINGTON, DC SEPTEMBER 2 A 3, 1981 The ACRS Subcommittee on Waste Manaqenent held a meeting in Room 1046, 1717 H St., NW, Washington, DC on September 2 A 3,1981.
The Subcommittee met with representatives of the NRC Staff, the Department of Energy (D0E),
and the Kentucky Department of Natural Resources.
Notice of this meeting was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, August 18, 1981.
A copy of this notice is. included as Attachment A.
A list of attendees is included as Attachnent B.
The schedule for this meeting is included as Attachment C.
A complete set of handouts is attached to the Office Copy of the minutes as Attachment D.
The meeting began at R: 30 a.m. with an opening statement by Mr. Moeller, who introduced Mr. Ray, ACRS Member, and Martin Steindler, Don Orth, Frank Parker, Herb Parker, and A. Wiley, ACRS consultants.
Mr. Moeller stated the purnose of today's meeting was to review and discuss the proposed rule on " Technical Criteria for Disposal of Hiah Level Radio-logical Waste in Geological Repositories," 10 rFR 60, and that tomorrow the Subcommittee would review " Licensing Requirenents for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste," 10 CFR 61.
Mr. Moeller mentioned that the Connission had specifically requested comments from the ACRS and the public on five specific questions or areas:
I'!
i 8202030088 811204 r
4 WASTE MANAGEMENT 9/243/81 1.
The degree to which the requirements for retrievability of high level waste will govern the thermal and mechanical design of a repository, and whether the 50 year time span over which the retrievability option must be exercised-will be adequate.
2.
The range of alternatives that should be considered in dealing with a potential problem of human intrusion into a repository.
3.
How the criteria for a repository should be stated:
(a) Pr'escribe a single overall performance standard?
(b) Prescribe minimum performance standards for each of the major elements?
(c) Prescribe detailed numerical criteria for critical engineering attributes of the system?
I 4.
Whether population related siting requirements and the distance to t'he nearest population center should be included in the final rule, and if so, how they might be implemented.
5.
Whether ALARA criterion should be applied to the performance requirements for containment and control of releases from the repository.
Mr. Moeller noted that this meeting is being conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act. Mr. Richard Major was introduced as the Designated Federal
WASTE MANAGEMENT 9/243/81 Employee for the meeting.
Mr. Moeller concluded his opening remarks by mentioning that no requests had been made for oral statements by members of the public and no written statements had been received from members of the public. Mr. Moeller introduced the first speaker, Mr. Carl Cooley of the U.S. Department of Energy.
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE, 10 CFR 60, " TECHNICAL CRITERIA FOR DISPOSAL OF HIGH LEVEL RADIOLOGICAL WASTE IN GEOLOGICAL REPOSITORIES" - MR. C. COOLEY, DOE Mr. Cooley noted that DOE is using a systems approach in their review of 10 CFR 60.
This he defined as looking at the components and the contribution of each to the total performance of the system.
Standards for the overall per-fomance of the system are being set by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. Cooley discussed the components of the multi-barrier system. The initial barrier is the solidified waste form. The next barrier is the canister which delays the release of radioactive material. Other barriers include backfills l
around the canister, the repository, and the backfill associated with the re-pository, and the ge' chemistry of the site. The characteristics of release would o
differ from site to site.
In response to a question from fir. H. Parker, Mr. Cooley noted that EPA standards are based upon curie releases to the environment, not dose rates.
Mr. Moeller inquired how much extra effort it would take to make a container last 1000 years instead of the NRC proposed 500 years. Mr. Cooley responded that the repository may cost $1 billion and possibly up to $10 billion. He noted that an evaluation would have to be made to detemine if that is the kind of investment that should be made.
WASTE MANAGEMENT 9/243/81 Mr. JACK PERRY, BATTELLE LABORATORY Mr. Perry described his role as assembling comments for DOE and presenting them to DOE for their. approval and submission to the Commission.
Some comments that Mr. Perry raised concerning 10 CFR 60 were:
(1) there isn't any numerical support justification for the proposed rule, (2) he questioned the 1000 year package and the 10-5 annual release rate, and (3) he questioned the lack of site-specific data. Mr. Perry mentioned that using the criteria of a 1000 year package, the 10-5 annual release rate limitiation, and the 1000 year groundwater travel would not meet the EPA standard without taking site geological characteristics into consideration.
Mr. Bell commented that the way the proposed rule is structured, the site is required to make up the difference so that the overall system meets the EPA standard.
Mr. Perry mentioned.the concern regarding compliance with the performance criteria.
He noted that the Commission has asked for public comment on the alternative approach question, i.e., the choice between a systems analysis technique vs. fragmented or individual numerical criteria.
Mr. Perry noted that if they had basic criteria that might be covered by an ALARA approach, or which could be reasonably met in terms of retention times, they might be able to move ahead.
Lack of some sort of reading from the Staff as to what they consider reasonable assurance for meeting certain criteria is hindering progress.
WASTE MANAGEMENT 9/2&3/91 TRANSPORT AND PATHWAYS MODELING OF GE0 LOGICAL REPOSITORIES - M. CULLINGFORD, Mr. Cullingford noted that the genesis of the modeling methods proposed for re-positories followed after WASH-1400 was issued. Following the Reactor Study, questions were raised about the rest of the fuel cycle. The thrust was to per-form sensitivity analyses, to determine the major contributors to risk, and from that, to develop some simplified models so that they could be used quickly and efficiently by the licensing staff.
Mr. Cullingford discussed the peer review of the model development. The first element is the Sandia management, followed by technical peers. This aspect consists of review of technical papers, through having them sent out for comment.
The second element is having an outside organization perform a technical review.
The third element is review by peer groups involved with waste disposal.
Mr. Cullingford continued by discussing some of the models:
(1) DHET - Gives estimates for local releases and (2) SWIFT Code - Calculates the transport of radioactive nuclides in a porous medium, f
Mr. Bell noted that the licensing office is going to initiate a benchmarking project where the Sandia codes and comparable DOE codes will be compared. A contractor will check how the results generated by the various codes compare.
MR. Helton stated that at Sandia the work in risk methodology can be divided into three main areas.
The first is the development of models to represent physical processes associated with the geological disposal of high level radioactive waste.
The second is the development of techniques for the use and assessment of these models. The third is the application of those models and techniques to a hypothetical site for disposal of high level waste.
r WASTE MANAGEMENT. 9/283/81 Among the possible causes of releases from a site, Mr. Helton mentioned were:
heating of the surrounding media creating stresses with resulting fracturing and possible flow through the fractures.
Another possible cause of a release would he a shaft seal failure which'would allow water to enter and exit a disposal site.
Mr. Helton discussed the computational models and the development of tech-niques for the use and assessment of the models.
One technique he discussed was sensitivity analysis, which assesses the relationship between the values that were supplied as input to the model and those which are generated as output.
M. BELL, NRC, cointed out the overall performance standard that will be applied to the licensing of geologic repositories for high level waste is the EPA general environmental standard. This standard has not yet been issued, although it has been reviewed in draft by the various involved federal agencies.
The EPA standard has two parts: exposures in the general environment during the l
operation of the fac111ty.
Here it limits the individual dose rate to 25 millirem per year. Following closure of the site, olaces a limit on the quantities of radio-active material released to the accessible environment over a 10,000 year period.
The performance assessment of the repository is difficult because:
i (1) By constructing a repository and emplacing the waste, pathways are created that didn't exist before.
l (2) There is uncertainty about the geochemical systems of any lite.
(3) There is uncertainty about the transport processes for 10,000 l
years.
l WASTE MANAGEMENT 9/283/81 (4) The temperature gradients will be large.
The waste package is estimated to reach about 600 degrees centigrade, the surface of the waste package ~ about 500 degrees centigrade, and the host rock close to 500 degrees centigrade.
The approach selected requires that the engineered system be designed so that the waste packages contain the radioactsr materials for at least the first 1000 years in order to get past the condition of high temperature in the repository.
After the first 1000 years, the release rate should be limited to one part in 100,000 of the maximun concentrations of the radionuclides calculated to be present in the underground facility at any time after 1000 years. One excep-tion to this requirement is that it does not apply to radionuclides whose contribution is less than one-tenth of one percent of the total annual curie release.
TRV wastes are exempted from the 1000 year containment requirement. TRU leakage from containment is restricted to one part in 100,000 from the time the waste is buried.
Mr. Ray commented that there wasn't any requirement in the proposed rule
^
requiring post closure monitoring of the repository. Mr. Ray's concern was that possible releases would not be detected.
WASTE MANAGEMENT.
8-9/283/81 COMMENTS ON 10 CFR 60 - ACRS FELLOWS:
M. GRIESMEYER, J. DONOGHUE, AND T. McKONE Their general comments were:
How do you interpret the proposed rule as it is right now? What are some of the implications of the proposed rule? What are some of the problems of implication?
The apparent approach was to look at the pathway to man from the waste, set up various barriers, then put requirements on the barriers. The difficulty is what is the implication of the requirements on the barriers.
Some of the difficulties are: What is meant by a 1000 year package? What is an accept-able number of failures? What is the rationale for an acceptable number of failures?
Mr. Griesmeyer questioned how the 1000 year containment is determined.
Quality assurance might determine if 99 out of 100 or 90 out of 100 are good.
How does the overall failure rate affect the ability to meet the EPA standard?
Mr. McKone remarked.that the standard to protect public health and safety was based upon modeling, and there is enough uncertainty in the models that it would be difficult at any point to link cancers or early deaths to some engineered feature.
Mr. Donoghue noted that there isn't any encouragement given to DOE to speed up the process, to accelerate the schedule, and to bury the material as rapidly as possible. He mentioned that some encouragement should be incorpo-rated into the proposed rule.
I
WASTE MANAGEMENT 9/283/81 At4:30p.m.themeetingwentintoexecutivesdssion.
Mr. Hoeller asked the consultants for their comments.
Mr. Moeller listed the six questions that the Commission had requested comments about and asked for comment.
The meeting recessed at 6:00 p.m. to reconvene September 3, 1981.
September 3, 1981 - The meeting was reconvened at 8:30 a.m.
DOE Presentation on Defense Research and Development Work Regarding Disposal of Low Level Waste M. R. Gertor, 00E, remarked that much of their work is in support of work by individual states.
He also mentioned that there will be an organizational change within DOE that will separate commercial and defense waste management.
Mr. Lowrie, ORNL, introduced himself as a program manager for some of the technical development work that is going on in the low-level waste -program.
The goal is to have approved and accepted a DOE wide low-level waste management system by 1988.
In,this goal are included five major objectives:
1.
Techniques for waste generation reduction by 1984.
2.
Waste treatment technology for shallow land and greater isolation sites by 1984-85.
3.
Technology and tools to support new shallow land burial sites l
by 1981.
4.
Technology for remedial actions at existing sites by 1984.
5.
Technology and tools for greater isolation by 1986.
l l
l
WASTE MANAGEMENT 9/283/81 Mr. Lowrie discussed the efforts on low-level waste burial. He described this as the ".... Demonstration, and documentation of the technology needed to site, design and construct, operate and close a safe, receivable shallow-la.nd burial facility for the disposal of low-level waste." Regarding the technology for operating a disposal facility, Mr. Lowrie indicated interest in monitoring and assay.
Major efforts are being made in quality control and quality assurance.
There is ongoing work in burial techniques and barriers to water and intrusion.
Mr. Jennrich, DOE stated that the area he would cover would be the commer-cial aspects of the low-level waste program specifically regarding assis-tance to states and regional groups.
He mentioned four aspects of these programs:
1.
Criteria development - The criteria of how to implement the site selection criteria.
2.
Better information on what their problens are, types of waste, had they can treat it.
3.
Information management type systems - What types of waste, how l
much they produce.
4.
Technology demonstrations - alternative methods of disposal of low-level waste, or treatment methods to handle them.
P. Lohaus, NRC, Comments on the Proposed Rule,10 CFR 61 Mr. Lohaus noted that Part 61 establishes overall performance objectives.
l
(
that should be achieved in the land disposal of radioactive waste.
He mentioned that Part 61 does not apply to other methods of disposal such l
l
WASTE MANAGEMENT. 9/283/81 as ocean disposal or sosce disposal.
Part 61 specifically refers to near surface disposal of waste.
There are reserved sections in Part 61 for other methods of -land disposal, i.e. deep or intermediate burial and mine cavity disposal, which will be addressed in the future.
Referring to standards, Mr. Lohaus noted that they had adopted the fuel cycle standard of 25 millirem whole body exposure at the site boundary to protect individuals.
For protection of the population, they have adopted the EPA drinking water standards at the nearest public drinking water supply.
For protection of an inadvertent intruder, a 500 millirem dose limit for in-dividuals was adopted.
There was a discussion by Mr. Lohaus regarding protection of individuals against inadvertent intrusion.
Inadvertent intrusion could encompass loss of burial site records after the site has closed, the subsequent construction of a house on tne site.
l Mr. F. Parker and Mr. Lohaus discussed disposal of wastes that are both hazardous and radioactive, i.e. chemically toxic as well as radioactive.
Mr. Lohaus explained that intention in the regulations was to prohibit adding radioactive materials to hazardous wastes and using a " radioactivity l
l dump" for disposal of toxic chemical wastes.
Mr. Steindler and Mr. Lohaus discussed disposal limits at a site, using l
nickel-59 as an example, Mr. Steindler noted an infinite number of packages l
l l
WASTE MANAGEMENT 9/2&3/81 containing 2.2 micro curies per cc can be buried but not a single package of 2.3 microcuries per cc. Mr. Lohaus concurred. He mentioned that the upper bound limits are general limits.
If a particular waste did in fact exceed the concentration, it could be handled on a case by case basis.
Mr. H. Parker listed seven remarks concerning low level waste burial.
1.
Recommendation of determining de minimis (concentration minimum below which regulations do not apply) stipulation.
2.
Simplification of the reasonable assurance requirements.
3.
Elimination of all organics and combustibles from the radio-active waste to the greatest feasible extend.
4.
Reducing the 500 millirem intruder dose.
5.
Random testing of TRU waste drums by removing waste from the drums and measuring the radioactivity.
The purpose is to determine factually whether large amounts of submitted waste are, in fact, t,elow the accepted 10 nCi/g limit, because of the difficulty of proving otherwise with present instrumentation capability.
6.
Takes exception to the practice of converting plutonium 241 doses to equivalent alpha curie amounts.
The meaning of this was questioned later by the NRC Staff, and it is indeed obscure.
I meant that when 24I 24I the Pu is converted to about 3% equivalent of Am to account for its decay, it should be clear that this has to be added to existing 241Am and other TRO contaminants to test the total against the 10nCi/g criteria.
7.
Referring to page 38085 of the federal register notice on 10 CFR 61, he suggested it would be helpful if we had better data on what is really going to be the major amounts and the major activities that waste disposal operators would have to cope with.
WASTE MANAGEMENT 9/2&3/81 Mr. B. Fish, Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Decommissioner of Maxey Flats Mr. Fish described the operating history of Maxey Flats since the Commonwealth of Kentucky purchased the site.
One of the major problems has been the infil-tration at the rate of 2 million gallons per year. This has been handled by use of evaporators.
Decommissioning is underway and is expected to be completed by 1988.
Trench caps are being designed and will be installed in the future to decrease the infiltration by rain.
Then trench caps will consist of multi-layers of vegetative layer, a clay layer, and a plastic membrane.
At 4:05 p.m. the meeting recessed to reconvene in Executive Session.
Executive Session Conments From Consultants:
H. Parker:
1.
De minimis. concerns, how can you separate toxic chemical concerns from radioactivity concerns?
2.
Eliminate organics from wastes. This especially applies to chelates or other agents that could increase TRU mobility by orders of magnitude.
3.
500 mrem / year seems high for intruder dose - recommend a factor of 3 less.
4.
Recommends random testing of TRU waste containers, with a view to estab-lishing whether much present so-called TRU waste is well below 10nCi/g.
WASTE MANAGEMENT 9/283/81 241 5.
Recommends clarifying that the equivaient Am content derived 241 from the Pu burden is added to other real TRU content to determine the equivalent total.
6.
Recommends placing limits on the volumes of wastes as well as their radionuclide concentrations.
F. Parker:
Recommended an escape hatch from very rigio numbers.
Suggested best achievable basis on a case by case basis.
Suggested that TRU waste be handled by separate regulations.
D. Orth:
Suggested using Sandia computer to obtain a distribution function and confidence levels for releases to the environment by means of
" Monte Carlo" type calculations over the ranges of the variables that influence the releases.
M. Steindler:
Believes performance of canisters should be established by testing and certified data.
Suggested canisters can have confidence levels.
Not sure if cost of benefit analysis is necessary.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m.
1 A complete transcript of the meeting is on file at the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H St., NW., Washington, D.C. or can be obtained from Alderson Reporters, 300 7th St., SW, Washington, D.C. 202-554-2345.
ATTACHMENT A 41883 Federal Register / Vol. 46. N2.159 / Teesday. August 16. 1981 / Notices NUCt. EAR REGULATORY Far the Nuclear Rassletor) Caenuosion.
relief dated December 17.1976 as COMMISSION Homas A.lppolMo.
supplemented June 28,19*7. (2) the Chief Operotmg Reactors Bmnch No.1 Commission's letter dated August 12.
(Doctiet No. 9t>-3331 Dmsion ofLicensir;E 1981, and (3) the Commission's related IFR Dw. ei-aan rw e.s'-st mes =1 Safety Evaluation. All of these items are Power Authority of the State of New aus.o coot reso.es.es available for public inspection at the York lasuance of Amendment to Commission's Public Document Koom.
Facittty Operating Ucense
%,,,,7,j 1717 H Street. N.W Weshington. D C.
and at the Salem Free Public Ubrary.
He Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Service Electric and Gas Co, 112 West Broadway. Salem New Jersey.
(the Commission) has issued Philadelphia Electric Co, Delmarva A copy ofitems (2) and (3) may be Amendment No. 58 to Operating Ucense Power and Ught Co., and Atlantic Csty obtained upon request addressed to the No. DPR-59. Issued to the Power Dectric Co.; Grant of Relief From U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Authorit) of the State of N.ew York' ASVE Section XIinservice Inspection Washington. D C. 20555. Attention:
which revised the Tedmical Requirements Director. Division of Ucensing i
Specifications for operation of the James Deted at Bethesda. Maryland. this 12th de A. FitzPatnck Nuclear Plant (the facilit>)
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission of August.1 set.
located in Oswego Count). New York (the Commission) has granted rehef from certain requirements of the ASME For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission He amendment is effective as of the Code. Section XL " Rules for Intervice stmo A.vaga.
date ofits issuance.
Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant CAct operorms Reactors Bror ch No r.
The amendment rev.ses the prov..isions Components" to Publ.c Service Electnc Dmsion ofLkensins i
in the Technical Specifications to and GafCompany he cet ef related to irm o-si-sar rw mei s-i expand the bases for the numerical the inservice inspectioh program for the ammo coot reso.c.a distnbution of safety /rehef valve Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit setpomts No. I located in Salem County. New The application for the amendment Jersey. The ASME Code requirements Advisory Committee on Reactor complies with the standards and are incorporated by reference into the Safeguards, Subcommittee on Waste requirements of the Atomic Energy Act Commission's rules and regulations in 10 Management; Meeting of1954 as amended (the Act). and the CR Part 50. The relief La effecUve as of The ACRS Subcommittee on Waste Commission's rules and regulations ne August 12.1961.
Management will hold a meeting on Commission has mede appropriate The relief permits Public Service September 2 and 3.1981. Room 10%
find ngs as required by the Act and the Electne and Gas Company to postpone 1717 H Street.NW. Washington DC Commission's rules and regulations in to the inspectaon of welds in one specified
%e Subcommittee will discuss the CFR Chapter I which are se' forth in the component of the reactor vessel, to proposed rule on Technical Cnteria for substitute alternative techniques for Disposal of High Level Radioactive license amendment. Prior public notice examining the cladding of the reactor Wastes in Geological Repositones (10 of the amendment was not required vessel and to substitute al4rnatave CFR 60) and the Ucensing Requirements eince the amendment does not involve a tec quu fu esamining weMs in a for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste significant hazards consideration.
total of six locations on the nactw (to CFR 61).
The Commission hee determined that vesseh piping pre e boundary and in accordance with the procedures the 4suance of the amendment will not
- $ prov outlined in the Federal Register on res it la any significant ensironmental
[yhae f enable a e
b "*' "
impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR inspections to be made of components
'"*"'"**I F"'
51.5(d)[4] an environmental impact that are not amenable to ins ection by 8'
r g be p0r p
statement or negatise declaration and methods in the ASME Code y reason of e
ed ni s
ensaronmentalimpact appraisal need inaccessibihty, geometry of component, of the meeting when a transcript is beir; not be prepared m connection with or incompatibility of metal, radiation kept. and questions may be asked only issuance of the amendment.
level or techmque.
by members of the Subcommittee. its For further details with respect to th,s The request for relief comph.es with consultants. and Staft Persons desiring i
action, see (1) the apphcation for the standards and requirements of the to make oral statements should notify amendment dated April 28.1981.(21 Atomic Energy Act of1954. as amended the Designated Federal Employee as far Amendment No 58 to Ucense No DPR-(the Act). and the Commissi,on a rules in advance as pr eticable so that
- 59. and (3) the Comrnission's letter to the and regulations. The Commission has appropriate arrangements can be made licensee dated August 12.1981. All of made appropriate findings as required to allow the necessary time during the these items are available for public by the Act and the Commission a rulee meeting for such statements.
Inspection at the Commission's Public and regulations in10 CFR Chapter L The entire meeting will be open to which are act forth in the letter granting public attendance.
Document Room.1717 H Street. N.W ne agenda f r subject meeting shall M
Washington, D.C., and at the Penfield Commission has detennined that be as follows:
Ubrary. State University College at gggg Oswego.New York 13126. A copy of in any significant environmentalimpact Wednesday.Scprember2. sef 430am items (2) and (3) may be obtamed upon and that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5{d)t4) smrit tac conclasson ofbusinen 7bursdo).Septembers, iser-esp om request addressed to the Nuclear an environmentat irnpact statement or
""## 'A' ##"'#"" #%'#"88' Regulatory Commission. Washington.
negative declaration and environmental D C. 20555. Attention: Director. Disiaion impact appraisal need not be prepared During the initial portion of the of Ucensing in connection with this action.
meeting. the S4bcommittee along with Dated at Bethesda. Maryland. this 12th day For further details with respect to this any ofits consaf tants who may be of August test.
action. see (1) the licensee's request for present.will exchange preliminary e
,.--r
,a.,,
y e r - s.s v r m _ =.--
.---m
-m Federal Register / Vol. 46. No.159 / Tuesday. August 18. 1981 / Notices 41889 i
views regarding matters to be 2 Advance Procurement Planning and the implementation of the motract cormdered dunng the balance of the Agencies sha!! issue procedures that nog nquim an Adsance Pmeumment For further information with respect to d
The Subcommittee will then hear Planning System (APP) for each activity-this policy directive. contact Mr. lock presentations by and hold discussions The procedures shallinclude:
Nadol. Assistant Administrator for a*
with representatives of the NRC Staff.
-Estabhshment of a specinc Procurement Practices, telephone 395-their consult nts. and other interested threshold above which procurements H55 8-are to be considered majon Effectis e date:This Policy 14tter is persons.
a Further information about topics to ba
-Des elopment and maint'enance of
Y-discussed whether the meetmF as an adsance procurement plan to cover effective August 28.1981.
h been concelled or rescheduled the major procurement requirements and Concurrence:His letter has been h'
Chairman's ruling on requests for the other requirements with high waste concurred in by the Director of OMB opportunit.1o present oral statementa vulnerabibly. auch as consulting Dooald E. Soute.
I and the time allotted therefor can be services. certain equipment. periodicals. Admimstmror.
l obinined by a prepaid telephone call to pamphlets. or audiovisual products. The wm%
d.)
the cop.nizant employee. Mr. Carry plan should be deseloped wellin m
Young (telephone 202 /634-1414) ads ance of tht fiscal yearin which the betn een 815 a m. and 5 00 p m.. EITT.
acquisition will be made; t
'Ihe Desig :ated Federal Ernployee for
-Fiexibility to allow revisions to the this mer:mg is Mr. ]ohn C. McKinley, plan. but only to reflect budget changes.
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION FOR THE emergencies.and changes in program STUDY OF ETHICAL PROBLEMS IN MEDICINE AND 910 MEDICAL AND D.'ed Aus"2sm m direction:
lohn C Ho3 e.
-Procurement planning that begins BEHAVIOR AL RESEARCH t
A6 e 3 Co.--aree Afesegment CBeer concurrently with the ag'ency budget Public Meteting ps t....:- n..e e-r.c e e.N process.
ses coot riso-ci-as
-A requirement that needs are Notice is hereb) gisen pursuant to te
_ apecified in a form that pernuts effective Section10(a)(2)of theFederal Advisory competition and innosation.
Committees Act that the twelfth OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
-A means to resolve disag eements meeting of the President's Commission BUDGET between procurement and project for the S'udy of Ethical Problems in dees:
Medicine and Biomedical and (Policy Letter 81-11
-Close control of major and high Behadoral Research will be held at the waste vulnerability purchases to ansare los Angeles Elton Hotel.los Angeles.
Procure nent Procedures, Advance Procurement Planning, and Review of that they am consistent with the California, from 9 00 a m. to 500 p.m on ads ance procurement plan; and Friday. September 11.1981 and from 900 or End-of Year Purchases
-An ongoing program to assess the a.rrt to 5.30 p m. on Saturda). September
)
Aups,13 19Bt appropriateness of the methods u6ed to nts To the heads of Esecutise satisfy needs. includ ng cost The meeting will be open to the sie Departments and Establishments effectiseness. whether gold-plating will public, subject tolunitations of available It is the responsibiht) of the head of result, and hfe cycle costmg. where apace.The agenda forFnday.
each agenes to assure efficient and appropnete.
September 11 will include among other economicJprocurement Consistent
- 3. Review pmcedures for tAe lost things (1) institutional arrangements for with that triponsibility is an obhgetion quarter spending Each agency sha!!
implementing federal regulations and b) to reduce w steful practices resultmg develop review procedures that require:
Fesolving problems m the conduct of il from hurried or unnecessary end.of year (a) close control of purchases made in biomedical research, and the role of the procurement in cartsmg out these the last quarter to assure that they are IRB within that organizational structure; ns mg responsitihties the liead of each consistent with the ads ance and (2) discussion of a draft report on y
Executive Department or Estabbshment procurement plan. (b) reevaluation of Compensatirig for Research injuries. The shall estabbsh the following the need for purchases made in the last agenda for Saturday. September 12 will l 18 m.<n.e-rnent controls quarter. (c) good procurement practice include, among other things:(1)
- 1. Procurement procedures providsits and accountabilit) to assure that decisions to forego hfe sustainmg br leodtime andcut-oft dores Each agency contracts are awarded only if prices are thnapy: and (2) continuation of shA dnelop p ocedu e. thet a!!ow reas'onable and (d) award of contracta discussion of the draft report on le stificient lead time to prepere on the basis of competition unless Compensation for Research injuries.
r solicitations.obt in and esaluate bids award on some other basis is During each afternoon. fifteen minutes or proposals, audit, negotiate. and make significantly to the adsantage of the will be desoted to comments from the contract awards in an orderly manner.
agency.
floor on the subject of any of the agenda The procedures shall specify the lead 4 Controct Ac' ion Log Each 11 tima required and estabhsh firm cutoff
. procuring activity shall keep a log of a itema. limited to three minutes per dates for submission to procurement mafor or high waste vulnerability comment. Written suggestions and comments will be accepted for the offices of requests for contract action to contract actions.
be completed by the end of a fiscal year.
Within oc days after the effective date record from those who are unable to n.
The lead times and cuteff dates may of this letter the head of each agency speak because of the constraints of time var) with the 13 pe of contract action sha!! report to OFpp the action Iaken to and from those unable to attend the and dollar thresholds Exceptions to the implement the provisions of this Policy meeting.
lead time and cutoff date procedures Letter.The report shall describe the Records shall be kept on all abould be kept to a minimum and adsance procurement planning procesa.
Commission proceedmgs and will be ih approved only under extraordmary the procedures to require lead time and available for pubhc inspection at the cuteff datea, the review procedures.
Commission's office, located in Suite circumstances.
g
AITACH"ENT a 1046 MIE711G R00.u. m.w _.
.U;VISORY COMMITTEE 0'i REACTOR SAFEGUARDS MEETIfG O!!
WASTE WsNAGEMENT SEPTEMBER 2-3, 1981 f
w_ _ - _ __
m
'b C
ATTENDIES PLEASE SIC': BELCk' g
gryt BAICE NC.
AFTILIATIO?;
h hig,s;
~l.$ f'A & /2,*
l]S Y-0
--- _. _ Y A dt.'U<>
a.
W ),c k / [. G O R ll _ ; g _ n d E
,L y szt_ a 1a n+1 E 9.12a T o e " '
'%. 5&c6 4 & c-c
.r e n o 3 &~uzic.J l
L. BcrwuD NG4WD EE!~7V J CMA~Y j.
C FN~ F
_l E v / P > -. _ _ /v u s G B/67_
1__.0 llc d
.3.
l /;.vAtn A d's,T_rf I w. -
5 P~r17 %
1_ E F P I~
10.
El N. #PARIG r?
h E o_JS_1 lcews-crive->.
_m.,
_0 C 1.- p I
~1*
1, /
l l4 a.1)w_r--- / '__pg a e'
_ M_
,,maa,-
'i j
__ p,w n NiLc _-.i
. 1 _ __ c o, m t u < 4 '
c in L<
- - - -_g
'f N
wl0 ~
ct? c
]
6,#l ~
1 -
W i i=cl.r4
]
S a n eli ct R~
. L _.e
- = - - - -, - = -
l m.,
of,y W }___1 6 o'/9 o
& Aa to o iga E__G m
pn--
c.---.r _um.m mI
<v 1 e c. u e i
e,L u- _.
&} K5AAML._b124ZL!01"dM'~/ E& -
Cp Jtn.ca y2Pe.a swT as
- M l
E ne.d_baudL,_j.isu_u_Sh.
MEETING DATE.
., SEPTEMBER 2-3, 1981
$UB00 W.lTTEE MEETING:
WASTE MANAGEMENT I LOCATION: _ ROOM 1046, 1717 H. St., NW, Washington, D.C.
ATTENDANCE LIST L4 EASE
'PRI N T l'A' E AF t J L I A1 ] O.'.
i.Scw z
tJosme use las
- 7. Wnb e rt Downi n n (14 N B C_ /'N MS S 4
},
// /\\/ fct. 7*l* C / L L /.'
O fc ti rd 'L
/:'
ti l 'a
- P
/~ /
6,
//LJ S C-7 a
f.m. Miidev Ale m e # v ries.c c s,
Cv Ece Ehus
_ s.
v.
RI' 9 -
th o G arc o,,9 P,<!,, u,-/w, /
4 6..
/
w E,8 :Dat.< i.'
- e. + z, ~
.r,.c e
Avio
.MC of F D E[ of t Kr:
o'F Nxter wrert m IN..(
($
L io^ ! : ':'
10.
_ _11.
L. e vsc=
k PP T l
J7.
l
_13.
M
_3L l
16.
r
! 17.
l
_1 L _
l 39.
l 10.
l 21.
~ '
lb 74.
a
_ _ =
.. M.LTIN DATE:
.,5EPTEMBER 2-3, 1981 SU3:0t.lTTEE MEETIN:i:
WASTE MANAGEMENT
' LOCATION:
ROOM 1046,1717 H. St., NW, Washington, D.C.
ATTENDANCE LIST
'P' E
Tu n g+
AF r j u_Ai l 0:.
Bs3 L n'.sf
- ,;' u m a D or=-
oc, c.
' Ac c' PA ere.1 8m-e n e -our 3,
a.
- /V) A GutA t%1trIlt - /UT f f f$c,a
^ '" s g,
N'"i'
! I *
.b.. I~?. a -
6.
- 7. TH.
1-. A T2 u 6 Re c-eso t= Lt. - H s.o Fe s' b
- 8. 0 e.crr'W Ir c.]n eml bR C-R?
?RA n 3 R.t s i N A u L T hI'<LlRGS e_
% d k sc e c,q ud.c/lis/Qh 10.
33 ! o.,p.:a C' D. t t.
a n.cc /A 3 T
o.
3p. F.
A
- 33. k /, /!/.//
!.MC-/W1%
i 1 0.( (g dben,
- ll!R ( / o P e i
. A l.Jin a I De ?___ _
y s
36.] : D Wnw,, a-DCS
_17. C fik L A' Ep Tot /
D C 6'
_18, )oh btoeIIPP 3I[.
' " ~ ~
3 9. M. C l>a 273 1st-to. C ARL cooLE Y doe he </
59
[bs s e <
21.
1
-/
', /
h. k.!,
D C. c - C:.'-
~
32,
_+1 n
Jon Activo sc,J.,
Mel-+- Ga w, n 5'. a i o.
t<.
I
ATTACHMENT C Revis:d 8/28/81 i$
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR SEPTEMBER 2 AND 3,1981 ACRS SUBCOWITTEE MEETING ON WASTE MANAGEMENT WASHINGTON, D.C.
Wednesday Sept. 2,1981 8:30 a.m.
Opening Statement Dr. Dade W. *1oeller, Subcomittee Chairman DOE Presentation on High-Level Radioactive 8:45 a.m.
Wastes Disposal and Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 60.
C. Newton, et. al. (DOE)
BREAK 10:00 a.m.
NRC Staff Presentation on Transport and 10:15 a.m.
Pathways Modeling of Geologic Iepositories, Sandia Work M. Cullingford, et. al. (NRC Staff /Sandia)
LUNCH 12:15 p.m.
NRC Staff Presentation on Proposed 10 CFR 60 1:15 p.m.
Technical Criteria for Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories.
M. Bell,et.al.(NRCStaff)
ACRS Staff and Fellows Discussion with Sub-3:15 p.m.
Comittee on Their Review of Proposed 10 CFR 60.
M. Griesmeyer, J. Donoghue, T. McKone (ACRS)
BREAK 4:00 p.m.
Subcommittee Discussion of Coments on 4:15 p.m.
Proposed 10 CFR 60.
ADJOURN 5:00 p.m.
= - >.xx-
.. n..
n
- 2 a_
. _ _ _. ~. _. _. _ _ _ _ _
l l
Revised 9/1/81 l
Thursday Sept. 3, 1981 i
8:30 a.m.
Opening Statement Dr. Dade W. Moeller, Subcommittee Chairman 8:45 a.m.
DOE Presentation on Defense Research and Development Work regarding Disposal of Low-Level Waste D. McGoff, et. al. (DOE / Idaho Lab /0RNL)
BREAK 10:45 a.m.
11:00 a.m.
DOE Presentation on Canmercial Programs, Technology Transfer and State Assistance Programs D. McGoff, et. al (DOE / Idaho Lab /ORNL)
LUNCH 12:00 Noon 1:00 p.m.
NRC Staff Presentation on Proposed 10 CFR 61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste P. Lohaus, et. al. (NRC Staff)
BREAK 3:30 p.m.
3:45 p.m.
Kentucky Dept. of Natural Resources Presentation on Decommissioning of Maxey Flats B. Fish (Kentucky Dept. of Nat. Resources) 4:15 p.m.
Subcommittee Discussion of Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 61 5:00 p.m.
ADJOURN
-